Have the dog alerts any significance?

[John]

I quoted a hypothetical situation.... I understand exactly how these dogs work


what is absolutely true is taht the value in these dogs is in the evidence they find...not in unconfirmed alerts

The dogs can alert without finding evidence which then leads to further searches when evidence can be found.  Had the dogs not alerted the evidence would have been lost.  The value of such dogs can never be underestimated.

[Mr Gray]

The dogs can alert without finding evidence which then leads to further searches when evidence can be found.  Had the dogs not alerted the evidence would have been lost.  The value of such dogs can never be underestimated.

I understimate the value of the dogs but an alert without evidence is pretty useless...the dogs are invaluable at finding evidence...that is their job




the alerts themselves are not reliable a s evidence

[Alice Purjorick]

it does follow...if something cannot be shown to be reliable then it cannot be relied upon....that makes it unreliable

Err no!

[Mr Gray]

Err no!

yes

[ShiningInLuz]

gerry like me is a scientist...there is no evidence either way so we dont know if the alerts are reliable...

we can therefore not accept them as reliable...therefore they are unrelaible

Let me see ... there is no evidence either way becomes... therefore they are unreliable?  Really?

What "there is no evidence either way" would mean is "there is no evidence either way".

But the problem with your argument is that there is evidence.  There are scientific studies.  Similar dogs are used frequently by various law authorities.  You appear to be saying OG made fools of themselves by deploying two unreliable dogs in Luz in June 2014.

I wonder what Gerry thought of the use of those 'unreliable' dogs in the search for Madeleine.  Was he miffed?

[Alfie]

So the dogs are reliable, and as the dogs alerted in Apartment 5a there must have been a corpse in there and it was most probably Madeleine's despite the lack of any corroborating evidence, is that the correct conclusion to be drawn then?

[misty]

Here is an example of why the dogs alerts should not be taken as 100% reliable.

The dog & handler team in question (Tracy Sargent, impressive CV) is reportedly one of the best in the USA. The search was undertaken 11 months after young Deorr had disappeared and after the terrain had been covered by deep snow for 7 months. 5 alerts, only one corroborated by a buried bloodied towel.

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/07/private-investigator-issues-lengthy-report-deorr-kunz-case/

*snipped*
Investigator Sargent reports the “Chance” whom is a trained cadaver dog hit five different unknown targets. Chance is trained on human decomposition and human blood pathogen decomposition.

The following are the hits (limited) :

1. “Diaper Tree Area” – This is the area to which it was testified that “a diaper” was hung in the tree in the campground.
2. 139 Feet East of the Cattle Guard in the camp ground – in a loose ground area.
3. 10 Feet Due East of camp site.
4. 2.24 miles due Northeast of the 15 mp stake, in the ravine near 221 southeast fence.
5. Camp site ground .75 miles due East of the camp ground.

Area 1 : There was no evidence obtained.
Area 2 : Excavation was undertaken by LE and KIC – this area needs to be further exhumed and was turned over to Law Enforcement for further investigation by their team.
Area 3 : This area was excavated by hand – and found that a previous animal had been buried at this location. During the burial the subject who did the burial cut his hand and bled into a towel wrapped around the animal.
Area 4 : Investigators have turned this area over to law enforcement.
Area 5 : Investigators believe this site may have been a “holding site” for some type of human body.

There was no other evidence found.

[ShiningInLuz]

So the dogs are reliable, and as the dogs alerted in Apartment 5a there must have been a corpse in there and it was most probably Madeleine's despite the lack of any corroborating evidence, is that the correct conclusion to be drawn then?

Alfie, this claim and logic is as flawed as Davel's.

There are scientific studies re the dogs.  Fact.

The dogs are widely used by law enforcement agencies.  Fact.  Including OG.  Fact.

Corroborating evidence is required.  Fact.

And that was established probably 8 to 10 pages back, so I am sure forum viewers are getting bored with claims otherwise.  I know I am.  Mind you, it is good for getting to sleep at night.  Goodnight.

[Robittybob1]

So the dogs are reliable, and as the dogs alerted in Apartment 5a there must have been a corpse in there and it was most probably Madeleine's despite the lack of any corroborating evidence, is that the correct conclusion to be drawn then?

This was the conclusion I came to as well, but since the sighting by Gerry at 9:05 of Madeleine would preclude the cadaver odour coming from her. 

[barrier]

I dont understimate the value of the dogs but an alert without evidence is pretty useless...the dogs are invaluable at finding evidence...that is their job




the alerts themselves are not reliable a s evidence

It could be said that the word abduction is not reliable as evidence and thats why OG after multi pillions of pounds and 5 yrs have produced zilch.

[Mr Gray]

Let me see ... there is no evidence either way becomes... therefore they are unreliable?  Really?

What "there is no evidence either way" would mean is "there is no evidence either way".

But the problem with your argument is that there is evidence.  There are scientific studies.  Similar dogs are used frequently by various law authorities.  You appear to be saying OG made fools of themselves by deploying two unreliable dogs in Luz in June 2014.

I wonder what Gerry thought of the use of those 'unreliable' dogs in the search for Madeleine.  Was he miffed?

Your knowledge and understanding of the dogs is flawed
and your argument is muddled

The dogs are reliable at finding evidence
That is what makes them valuable

The alerts themselves where no evidence is found are unreliable
Grime tells us they are unreliable as evidence

Harrison confirms this and tells us no inferences can be drawn from the alerts

The dogs are used worldwide to find evidence
That is their value

The argument can be settled very simply by answering this question

What do the alerts in PDL tell us
They tell us nothing....fact

[barrier]

What do the alerts in PDL tell us
They tell us nothing....fact

Snipped,they tell us that the dogs alerted to what disciplines they were trained in,what they do not tell is to whom the alerts belong to,that is where forensics come in or not as the case maybe.If the case rested solely and wholly on the dog alerts it maybe could be understood the angst they cause,as it it and quite rightly pointed out as they stand at the moment they point at no one.

[Mr Gray]

Snipped,they tell us that the dogs alerted to what disciplines they were trained in,what they do not tell is to whom the alerts belong to,that is where forensics come in or not as the case maybe.If the case rested solely and wholly on the dog alerts it maybe could be understood the angst they cause,as it it and quite rightly pointed out as they stand at the moment they point at no one.

We do not know what the dogs alerted to
Grime was asked but could not confirm
He says they suggest cadaver odour but does not confirm this

[G-Unit]

We do not know what the dogs alerted to
Grime was asked but could not confirm
He says they suggest cadaver odour but does not confirm this

Unlike some, police officers do not present their beliefs as facts. It's clear that Grime had a lot of faith in the abilities of his dogs and that he believed they had alerted to the scents they were trained to find. He also understood the role of the dogs; to help investigators to find evidence which could be used to bring a prosecution. The alerts suggested a possibility but the forensics didn't confirm it. Were the alerts useless therefore? Not really, because the possibility remains on the table.

[Mr Gray]

Unlike some, police officers do not present their beliefs as facts. It's clear that Grime had a lot of faith in the abilities of his dogs and that he believed they had alerted to the scents they were trained to find. He also understood the role of the dogs; to help investigators to find evidence which could be used to bring a prosecution. The alerts suggested a possibility but the forensics didn't confirm it. Were the alerts useless therefore? Not really, because the possibility remains on the table.

Grime had an opportunity to say in his opinion the dogs alerted to cadaver odour
He didn't do it
What grime believes is not important...
There are 3 separate sources that tell us the alerts are unreliable as evidence
You can believe what you like
As can Grime
But that's all it is
Belief